State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman Railway Board Rail Bhawan ... vs Dr. Mohd. Ramzan on 4 July, 2025
FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025
THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 25.07.2022
Date of Hearing: 03.07.2025
Date of Decision: 04.07.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO.118/2022
IN THE MATTER OF
THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD,
RAIL BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI-110001.
(Through Mr. Prashant Sagar Yadav, Advocate
Email: [email protected]
& Mob.9718891721)
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
DR. MOHD. RAMZAN
S/O LATE MR ABDUL SATTAR
R/O J-3/31B, KHIRKI EXTN.,
MALVIYA NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110017
...RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr Vijay Joshi, Counsel for the appellant
(Mob: 9873677817 & Email: [email protected])
Respondent in person (Mobile: 9871288373, Email:
[email protected])
PER : HON'BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present Appeal (First Appeal) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, against the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal DISMISSED Page 1 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN Commission-VI, District New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Complaint (CC) No. 244/2014, inter-alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.
2. While the Appellant was Opposite Party before the District Commission and the Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission.
3. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act.). Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant alongwith his wife got booked two seats PNR No.8612037161 in the train No.22181, JBP Nizamuddin Express and paid for reservation of seats. On 17.04.2013 the complainant and her wife started their journey from Katni, Gwalior station to Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi and occupied their reserved seats in coach No. B-2 and bearing seat No.0058 and 0059, under class travel 3A. They were going to Katni, M.P. to attended a wedding function of their relatives held on 15.04.2013.
2. It is further averred that the complainant was carrying a trolly bag containing his important articles like two gold neckless, two ear hangings gold, two silver payal, one silver neckless with gold coated and locker key of Bank of India. All the articles were worth 3,00,000/-. According to complainant, the train started leaving Gwalior station at about 16:25, T.T.E. of the coach came and asked the passengers of the coach to check their luggage's as someone get down from the train with the luggage of the passengers having doubt of the person as stated by the coach attendant. The trolly bag which kept under the berth of lady co-passenger was not there., reported the missing bag to the coach attendent /TTE.
3. It is further been alleged that as soon as the train reached next railway station, he informed about the theft to DISMISSED Page 2 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN the Station Master who advised him to make a complaint in Police Station GRP at H. Nizamuddin. Afterwards, he along T.T.E. and Coach attendant, lodged a written complaint and a Zero FIR No.20130236 dated 18.04.2013 at 7:30 hrs. with GRP, Hazrat Nizamuddin Rly Station in this regard. The incharge of police station called coach attendant and asked what happened last night, in this regard T.T.E. and Coach attendant gave contradictory statement. A police man who was on duty on the platform, searched and retrieved two of the trolly bags one of the bag belongs to the complainant, begs retrieved from coach as per version of Police man who retrieved the begs. On inspection of the trolly bag in front of all policeman, T.T.E., coach attended, all gold ornaments were missing from the bag of the complainant
4. It is further been alleged that the railway authorities did not make any attempt to stop the train. The allegation that TTE or coach attendant noticed the intruders/culprits/thieves/unauthorized persons. The coach attendant told the complainant that TTE askeed him to close all the doors of Ac coach in question as thieves frequently catches the train in this area specially from Jhansi. As no positive result emerged out of it, a complaint was filed before this District Forum, alleging deficiency of services on part of the Opposite Party, complainant prayed for refund of cost of jewelry Amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards physical and mental agony, with litigation cost."
4. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 12.04.2022, whereby it held as under:
"9. The dispute revolves over loss of one luggage containing valuables of the complainant during train journey on 17.04.2013. However, in para A of preliminary Objections of WS/Reply, it is admitted by the OP that the complainant along with his wife and children were travelling on the said date i.e. 17.04.2013 in the train and they had a bonafide railway tickets and reservation in 3 tier AC. Moreover, it is DISMISSED Page 3 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN also admitted that the complainant gave complaint of theft which genuine and correct.
10. Question arises, if indeed TTE and RPF personnel were present at the compartment all through, how did the luggage of the complainant get lost. The luggage of the complainant indeed got stolen from the train can be ascertained from the empty bag brought by the police personal before P.S. H. Nizamuddin, District: Crime & Railway, wherefrom it transpires that the Police got recovered two begs belong to passengers of the train. Now that the matter of loss of baggage is not in dispute, let us discuss as to whether the OP-Railway can escape its liability taking shelter u/s 100 of the Railway Act.
11. In the matter of G.M., South Central Railway vs R.V. Kumar And Anr. reported in 2005 CTJ 862 (CP) (NCDRC), the Hon'ble National Commission while dealing with the identical issue has been pleased to observe as under:
"A passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage within permissible limits of weight, free of cost. There is no question of entrusting such baggage/luggage to the Railways and getting a receipt thereof. If a loss takes place of such a luggage, Railways can be held responsible provided that there is negligence on the part of Railways or any of its servants, provided, of course, that the passenger himself has taken reasonable care of his personal baggage as expected of a prudent person".
In this regard, it may not be totally out of the place to mention the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay v. Union of India Ors., reported in II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC) : 2004 (3) Supreme 291 wherein the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to observe as under:
"Railway Administration cannot escape its liability for negligence and deficiency in service in failing to prevent unauthorized persons assaulting passengers in railway compartment and taking away their luggage."
12. Further, with regard to the loss goods/luggage in a train, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Udho Ram & Sons, pertinently observed as under which is relevant for the facts of the present case:
DISMISSED Page 4 of 21FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN "It may be true that any precautions taken may not always be successful against the loss in transit on account of theft, but even so evidence should be offered with respect to the extent of the precautions taken and with respect to what the Railway Protection Police itself did at the place, where the train had to stop. It must be taken to be the duty of the Railway Protection Police to get out of the Guard's van whenever the train stops, be it at the railway platform or at any other place. In fact, the necessity to get down and watch the train when it stops at a place other than a station is greater when the train stops at a station, where at least on the station side there would be some persons in whose presence the miscreants would not dare to tamper with any wagon and any tampering to be done at a station is likely to be on the offside."
In view of this, the notion of the Appellants that Sec. 100 of the Railways Act, exonerates them of all liabilities unless the luggage is booked appears to be completely misplaced. In our considered opinion, in case belongings of a passenger get misplaced, particularly from a reserved compartment, the Railways must own up full responsibility for the same because during train journey, the responsibility of ensuring safety and security of lives of passengers as also their personal belongings lie with the Railways`.
13. Further, with regard to the loss goods/luggage's in a train on the same Station "Katni" Bhopal, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Southern Eastern Railway vs Ku. Bharati Arora on 20 November, 2003 Equivalent citations: I (2004) CPJ 114 NC, which is relevant for the facts of the present case, discussed the responsibilities of TTE attached to the sleep class coach.
14. The responsibility of TTE attached to the second class sleep coach have been considered in the decision in Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave's case wherein under Rules 4, 14, 16, 17 of Railway Authority clearly cast the responsibility on the TTE who failed to perform his duty which led to the DISMISSED Page 5 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN incident of theft. The duty of TTE for sleeper coach reads as under:
"4. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach, guide them to their berths/seats and prevent unauthorised persons from the coach. He shall in particular ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who came to see off or receive passengers do not enter the coach.
14.He shall ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when required.16. He shall ensure that the end doors of vestibuled trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 6.00 hrs. to prevent outsiders entering the coach
17. He shall remain vigilant particularly during night time and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorised persons do not enter the coach."
21. The above mentioned list of duties if not adhered to in the interest of passengers, and if not effectively adhered to and enforced, will remain as paper duties.
15. The responsibility of TTE attached to the second class sleep coach have also been considered, which is relevant for the facts of the present case, in the decision by the Hon`ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in G.M. Northern Railway V/S Anupama Sharma on 25 May, 2007 wherein under Rules 4, 14, 16, 17 of Railway Authority clearly cast the responsibility on the TTE who failed to perform his duty which led to the incident of theft.
16. The opposite parties have not even filed affidavit of the TTE, who was travelling in the coach, to support its submissions and could be conclusive in deciding the entire facts and circumstances regarding what had happened during the complainant's train journey. The OP-Railways had also failed to examine the TTE etc. The complainant has alleged that no RPF personnel were there, which the opposite parties have rebutted but without leading any cogent evidence in support of their rebuttal. Although necessary FIR was lodged with the concerned Police authority and OP Railway was apprised of the matter, none of them took any positive step to brought the perpetrator(s) DISMISSED Page 6 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN of such crime to justice, in any case, it is the settled position of law that pendency of criminal case/investigation is no bar to adjudicate a consumer dispute.
In view of the above, this commission is of considered view that OP`s guilty of deficiency in service and gross negligence on its part. Thus, the case of the complaint for grant of relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was established. The luggage concerned contained gold ornaments worth Rs.3,00,000/-. Although the complainant filed one estimate to show purchase of gold ornaments for an amount of, without any tangible proof, it cannot be stated with certainty that the stolen luggage indeed contained those goods as claimed by the complainant. Considering all these aspects, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the compensation amount is fixed. Accordingly, OP`s is/are Jointly and severally directed to pay complainant a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand Only) keeping in mind the harassment, mental stress and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for litigation cost along with an interest @9% p.a. from the date of institution of the case before this commission. OP`s is/are directed to comply with above said directions within three months from date of order, failing which the above-mentioned amounts shall carry an interest @12% p.a. for any further delay till its realization."
5. Vide Order dated 12.04.2022, in the CC No.244/2014, the District Commission allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:
A. BECAUSE the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum was against the settled principles and is therefore, bad in law. B. BECAUSE the Respondent was not given a legal notice or any complaint before filing of such case, which is mandatory under Section 106 of the Railways Ac 1989.
C. BECAUSE the trolley bag was in personal custody of the passenger himself and the Respondent was not used the wire for lock of the luggage's which is provided by the railways to DISMISSED Page 7 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN every passenger for the safety of the personal belongings of the passengers.
D. BECAUSE the Appellant cannot be held responsible for the unbooked luggage/personal belongings of the passengers, the Railways Administration is not responsible as per the rules and regulations and also in light of the various precedents set by the Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
E. BECAUSE that as per Section 100 of the Railways Act 1989.
"A Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destructions damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt thereof and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passengers in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants." It is important to mention here that the Railway administration, through offered to provide service, on the basis of purchase of ticket, taking to the passengers to the destination. For the unbooked luggage/personal belongings of the passengers, if the Railways Administration is to be held responsible, it is impossible to run the Indian Railways.
F. That another provision of the Coaching Tariff Clause 506.1, which deals the luggage in charge of air conditioned, and first-class passengers and clause 506.2, which deals the luggage in charge of the 2nd class passengers which is applicable to the present case. As per this clause "article taken into the carriage are at the entire risk of the owner"
similarly another clause gives notice to the public "that they are not accountable for any article, unless the same are booked, and a receipt for them is given by their clerk or agents".
G. BECAUSE the present complaint is outcome of alleged offence by some thief, who stole the hand bag of the Respondent and as such, the Respondent is not entitled to recover the loss from the Appellant.
H. BECAUSE the Respondent's luggage had been retrieved by the police man as soon as the complaint was logged by him after the train reached the H.Nizamuddin Railway station.
DISMISSED Page 8 of 21FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN I. BECAUSE the Respondent's had been in a tampered position or any lock had been broken, he would have intimated the same to the police official before opening the same, however since the same was not done it can be presumed that the bag was retrieved in the same position as it was.
J. BECAUSE the Respondent did not lodged online FIR on the website of the Appellant on moving train, however, FIR lodged by the complaint is still under investigation and, thus, the complaint in hand is premature. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed being non-maintainable.
K. BECAUSE the matter at hand pertains to a criminal offence for which FIR has been registered. Theft related matters are dealt exclusively under the Indian Penal Code 1873. The said matters are only related to law and order, which is not the subject matter of the Railway Department. The allegations of the Respondent herein warrant investigation, inquiry and trial. Therefore, no Consumer Complaint is maintainable. L. BECAUSE that the story of the Respondent being unwell is untrue and concocted. It is pertinent to mention here that the JBL NZM Express is a prime train with sufficient railway staff including one TTE at 3 coaches, who always available in the train. The Respondent failed to make any complaint register in this regard, which is available with the coach conductor in the train and also available in every Railway station. M. BECAUSE the present Consumer case is not maintainable for the reason of mis joinder of party i.e. Chairman Railway Board, New Delhi, neither a necessary nor a proper party in the present case. As per Section 79(a), 80(b) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 and Section 192 of the Railways Act. N. BECAUSE the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate if allowed to stand, would lead to grave miscarriage of justice."
6. The Respondent, on the other hand, filed reply to the present Appeal wherein, he has denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order
7. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of the parties.
DISMISSED Page 9 of 21FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN
8. The record as well as written submissions have been carefully & thoroughly perused and considered. The oral submissions have also been considered.
9. The only question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission erred in allowing the complaint filed by the respondent before it.
10. It is not disputed that on 17.04.2013 the respondent alongwith his wife was travelling from Katni, Gwalior Station to Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi under 3AC class.
11. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Section 100 of the Railway Act, 1989, the Railway is not responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of un- booked luggage as the luggage was not booked with the Railways. It is further submitted that the Railway cannot be held for the loss of any un-booked luggage, Rule 506.1 of the Indian Railway Coaching Tariff Clause provides that all the articles are taken into the carriage are carried at the entire risk of the owners, according to Rule 506.2 of Indian Railway Coaching Tariff, passenger himself is responsible for the safety of his luggage and the Railways cannot be held liable for any loss of damage. He has further submitted that the District Forum was wrong in holding that the TTE of the train has failed to perform his duties, which amounted to negligence and also deficiency in service, as per codified duties of the TTE. He has further submitted that since the complaint is related to the offence of theft and the complainant was required to strictly prove that he was carrying the alleged articles with him and the theft occurred due to the negligence of the Railways. He has further submitted that the theft took place due to the negligence of the complainant himself.
12. The scope of Section 100 of the Railways Act and other related instructions of the Railways with respect to liabilities of Railways DISMISSED Page 10 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN in cases of theft/loss of luggage had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble NCDRC in case titled 'Indian Railways through its General Manager & Anr. Vs. Smt. Uma Agarwal', R.P. No. 1099 of 2020, decided on 25.07.2023, considered various legal issues with respect to liability of Railways in such circumstances. Extract of relevant paras of order is reproduced below:
"9. We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contentions of the parties, orders of the State Commission and District Forum and other relevant records. There is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that incident is not covered under the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act and that issue is covered under Indian Penal Code and Railway Claim Tribunal Act, as remedies under Consumer Protection Act are in addition to remedies under other Statutes. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imperia Structures Ltd Vs Anil Patni and Anr (2020)10 SCC 783 that "Remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the remedies under special statutes".
Petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Station Superintendent &Anr. Vs. Surender Bhola (Civil Appeal No. 7116 of 2017) decided on 15.06.2023 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in a way a deficiency in service by the railways. If the passenger is notable to protect his own belongings, the railways cannot be held responsible". Petitioner argued that this judgment clearly states that the onus of security of belongings of the passenger in railway coaches is on the passenger themselves andnot on the railways.
............
11. Respondent has relied on office letter No. 98/TG-V/12/3 dated 11.09.1998 of the Petitioner / Railways, which prescribe certain duties of train conductor in Ist AC,2nd AC, 3rd AC and Ist class coaches, some of which are listed below:
5. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach and guide the passengers in occupying their accommodation.
He prevents illegal / unauthorized entry in the coach including the platform ticket holders.
11. He shall ensure that the doors of the coaches are kept latched during run of the train and open them as and when required by the passengers.
12. He shall keep the end doors of the vestibule coach locked during 22.00 hrs. to 06.00 hrs to prevent unauthorized entry.
13. He shall remain vigilant particularly during the night time DISMISSED Page 11 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN and prevent entry of unauthorized persons / beggars / intruders in the coach.
17. He shall be present in the allotted coach during duty hours and if more than one coach are to be manned, give frequent visits to all the coaches to be manned.
19. He shall attend to any complaint of theft / loss of passenger belongings and lodged the first information report with the GRP in the prescribed format to enable the passenger to continue the journey.
20. He shall carry blank FIR forms for making them available to the passengers incase of any incident of theft of luggage etc. Such forms duly filled in the handed over to the next GRP Post at the scheduled stoppage for further action in the matter.
12. Relying on above, the respondent contended that the railway personnel who were supposed to be in the coach have violated several of their duties which have been prescribed by the Railway Board by not closing the gates at night, not being present in the coach, allowing intruders in the coach, not aiding the respondent in filing the FIR among others. Hence, as they have failed in their duty, they were negligent in providing the requisite service to their consumers and the respondent herein. Thus, the Railways is liable for deficiency of service on account of negligence of its employees.
13. In Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwalla ( supra ), this Commission held that " TTE of coach was negligent in performance of his duties by not keeping the doors of the coach latched when the train was on the move and by not keeping the vestibules doors of coach locked from 10 p.m. to 6 p.m." Relying on this case, respondent contends that present case also warrants of the same circumstances where the doors of the coach were left open. Hence, it was a negligent act on the part of the TTE and the revisionists are liable to pay the compensation. In General Manager, South Central Railways Vs. Jagannath Mohan Shinde (supra), this Commission held that "If any unauthorized person is permitted to be present on there served compartment of a train, then Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act would not be of any help to the Railways in absolving them from any liability since any ways the Railways is responsible as a carrier of luggage if it is proved that there was negligence on its part." Relying on this judgment, the respondent argued that the contention of the revisionists that the ld. Consumer Commissions do not have jurisdiction in matters covered Section 100 of the Act, stands invalidated. In G.M. South Central Railway Vs. R.V. Kumar 2005 SCC Online NCDRC 222, this Commission observed that "A passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage within DISMISSED Page 12 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN permissible limits of weights, free of cost. There is no question of entrusting such baggage / luggage to the Railways and getting a receipt thereof. If a loss take place of such a luggage, Railways can be held responsible provided that there is negligence on the part of the Railways or any of its servants, provided, of course, that the passenger himself has taken responsible care of his personal baggage as expected of a prudent person." The respondent argued that in the present case, the respondent has taken more than reasonable care by keeping the purse beneath her pillow while sleeping. Moreover she tried her best to stop the snatching of her belongings and despite being a female bravely tried to catch hold of the intruder herself but was stopped by person who was supposedly railway staff as appeared from his uniform/appearance. Railway officials by keeping the doors of the coach open and by allowing an unauthorized person to enter the coach have failed to perform their duty which point towards their negligence thus causing a deficiency in service. In Station Master, Indian Raiwlays V s. Sunil Kumar ( supra ), this Commission observed that "We further note that the complainant was travelling with ladies (mother and wife ) and children on reserved berths in a reserved coach after paying the fares and purchasing the tickets. He was right in agitating that the railways was responsible for safety and security of person and hand-held baggage, including from unknown persons who gained entry unauthorizedly and committed theft (the railways was undoubtedly responsible for theft of hand-held baggage from running train). Respondent argued that in the present case, theft occurred under similar circumstances as the respondent's belongings were stolen by unauthorized persons in a reserved coach, therefore, the Railways are liable to pay compensation to the respondents.
14. Petitioner argued that jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is barred because matters pertaining to the theft is specifically barred by Section 97 and 100 of the Railways Act, extract of which is reproduced below:
"Section 97 : Goods carried at owner's risk rate - Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 93, a railway administration shall not be responsible for any loss, destruction, damages, deterioration or non delivery in transit, of any consignment carried at owner's risk rate, from whatever cause arising except upon proof, that such loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery was due to negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of it servants."
Section 100. Responsibility as carrier of luggage.--A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt DISMISSED Page 13 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servant."
A bare perusal of above provisions show that under section 100, if it is proved that loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of railways or on the part of any of its servant, the railways administration will be held responsible. In this case both the fora below have given concurrent findings regarding negligence / deficiency of service on the part of petitioner railways/ its officials. Hence, agreeing with the contentions of the respondent, we do not find any infirmity or illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld."
13. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble NCDRC in case titled 'Ashok Kumar Purohit Vs. Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Central Railway & Anr., RP No. 1353 of 2019, decided on 16.10.2023. Relevant paras of this order are reproduced below:
"9. In Dinesh Agrawal Vs. Indian Railway and Others, RP No. 3265 of 2014 decided on 03.09.2015, this Commission observed:
5. Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner reads as under:
"Responsibility as carrier of luggage - A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration of non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants."
It would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of its employees.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though no unauthorized person was entitled to enter the compartment in which the complainant and his wife were travelling, the railway officials permitted the such persons to enter the coach and it was on account of the such unauthorized entry that the theft could be possible. We however find that there is no evidence of any unauthorized person having actually entered the coach in DISMISSED Page 14 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN which the complainant and his wife were travelling. This is complainant's own case that they were sleeping at the time of theft took place. Therefore, they possibly cannot have personal knowledge about the alleged presence of some unauthorized persons in the coach. Hence, we are satisfied that the alleged presence of unauthorized persons in the reserved compartment could not be established. The possibility of a fellow passenger, travelling on a reserved ticket having committed the theft and got down at a station, when the complainant was asleep cannot be ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that TTE did not render requisite cooperation to the complainant after the theft was reported to him. The plea taken in the reply filed by the OPs is that the TTE had rendered all possible help to the complainant as soon as he was informed the alleged theft. There is no independent evidence of non-cooperation on the part of the TTE. In any case, the alleged theft cannot be attributed to the said non-cooperation on the part of the TTE since it had already been taken before the matter was reported to him.
10. In Union of India & Anr Vs. Lakshit Joshi, RP No. 432 of 2016 decided on 02.11.2017, this Commission observed :
9. ............. Thus, it is clear that the luggage was lost when the train was at halt at the station when passengers get down the train and some others board the train. In such situation, if the luggage was lying unattended, anybody could have walked off with the bag. This is the time when the TTE and the conductor are also busy in some other necessary activities. Some time even the staff is changed at such big stations. Otherwise, also there are instructions that passengers should not use the washroom when the train is halting at a railway station. In many judgments passed by this Commission, this Commission has taken a view that Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 is applicable in such cases and until some negligence or misconduct of any employee is proved, the Indian Railways is not liable. This Commission in the case of Union of India and others vs. Rama Shanker Misra and another (supra) has held that :
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) - Railways -baggage stolen by cutting chain of lock - Loss of valuables - Deficiency in service allege - Compensation claimed
- District Forum allowed complaint - State Commission partly allowed appeal - Hence revision - No averment in complaint which could constitute any negligence or misconduct or even deficiency in service on part of railways or any of its employees- Petitioner could have been liable to compensate only if some negligence or misconduct on part of railway employee was established- As no such negligence having even been alleged it would be difficult to sustain impugned order."DISMISSED Page 15 of 21
FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN x xxx
11. The case cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant which is Union of India through its General Manager vs. Dr (Smt.) Shobha Agarwal (supra) has different facts. In fact, the complainant in the referred case had taken all the precautions and had tied up their suitcase with the chains fastened with the berth and the theft has occurred after cutting the chain during night. Whereas in the present case, theft had occurred in the morning when the train was halting at a big station and the bag was left unattended for some time by the complainant. Thus, the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant is not directly applicable in the present case.
11.In Station Superintendent and Anr. Vs. Surender Bhola, 2023 SCC Online SC 741, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :
"5. We fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways. If the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible."
12. From the perusal of various judgments of this Commission relied upon by the respondent / Railways, it is evident that under Section 100 of the Railways Act 1989, Railways are not responsible. It would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of its employees and railways could have been liable to compensate only if some negligence or misconduct on the part of railway employee was established.
13. In Northern Railway Vs. Neetu Gupta & Anr, RP No. 3164 of 2017 decided on 14.05.2018, this Commission observed as follows:
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon Section 100 of the Railways Act. The aforesaid provision was also considered by this Commission in Syed Mubuddin Rizvi (supra) and the following view was taken:
" 6.As regards Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner reads as under: "Responsibility as carrier of luggage - A railway administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration of non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and given a receipt therefore and in the case of luggage which is carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also proved that the loss, destruction, damage or DISMISSED Page 16 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN deterioration was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the part of any of its servants".
It would thus be seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways on any of its employees."
14. Same was the view taken by this Commission in R.P. No.3799 of 2014 Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwalla & Anr. decided on 26.05.2015, wherein this Commission observed :
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner now relies upon Section 103. The aforesaid provision, in my view, has no applicability to a case where compensation is claimed on account of negligence on the part of the railway officials.
8. Coming to the alleged negligence on the part of the petitioners, it is not in dispute that the complainants were travelling in a reserved compartment. In the complaint filed before the concerned District Forum, the petitioners did not dispute the aforesaid position. They also did not dispute the allegation of the complainants that a beggar woman had entered the reserved compartment at Mughal Sarai railway station and had committed theft of the purse being carried by complainant no.1. Since the complainants were travelling in a reserved compartment, it was the duty of the railway officials to ensure that no unauthorized person entered the said compartment at Mughal Sarai railway station. By not preventing the entry of a beggar woman in a reserved compartment, the railway officials committed an act of gross negligence and since the aforesaid negligence resulted into a theft, they are also liable to reimburse the complainants for the loss suffered by them.
15. In South East Central Railway and Anr. Vs. Soni Singh and Connected matter, RP No. 2081 of 2018 and connected matter, decided on 15.03.2019, this Commission held :
7. .....It is the duty of the Railway Authorities to ensure that no unauthorized person travels in the Reserved Coach. If an unauthorized person travels in the Reserved Coach, the Railway authorities fail in discharging their obligation and will result in deficiency in service making them liable to reimburse the passenger for the value of goods/items, which have been stolen or snatched, which has actually happened in the present cases.
16. In Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwalla 2015 SCC Online NCDRC 2956, this Commission held that " TTE of coach was negligent in performance of his duties by not keeping the doors of the coach latched when the train was on the move and by DISMISSED Page 17 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN not keeping the vestibules doors of coach locked from 10 p.m. to 6 p.m.".............. Hence, it was a negligent act on the part of the TTE and the revisionists are liable to pay the compensation. In General Manager, South Central Railways Vs. Jagannath Mohan Shinde 2012 SCC Online NCDRC 183, this Commission held that "If any unauthorized person is permitted to be present on the reserved compartment of a train, then Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act would not be of any help to the Railways in absolving them from any liability since anyways the Railways is responsible as a carrier of luggage if it is proved that there was negligence on its part." In G.M. South Central Railway Vs. R.V. Kumar 2005 SCC Online NCDRC 222, this Commission observed that "A passenger travelling by a train is entitled to carry certain baggage or luggage within permissible limits of weights, free of cost. There is no question of entrusting such baggage / luggage to the Railways and getting a receipt thereof. If a loss take place of such a luggage, Railways can be held responsible provided that there is negligence on the part of the Railways or any of its servants, provided, of course, that the passenger himself has taken responsible care of his personal baggage as expected of a prudent person." ......... Railway officials by keeping the doors of the coach open and by allowing an unauthorized person to enter the coach have failed to perform their duty which point towards their negligence thus causing a deficiency in service. In Station Master, Indian Railways V s. Sunil Kumar 2018 SCC Online NCDRC, this Commission observed that "We further note that the complainant was travelling with ladies ( mother and wife ) and children on reserved berths in a reserved coach after paying the fares and purchasing the tickets. He was right in agitating that the railways was responsible for safety and security of person and hand-held baggage, including from unknown persons who gained entry unauthorizedly and committed theft ( the railways was undoubtedly responsible for theft of hand-held baggage from running train). Respondent argued that in the present case, theft occurred under similar circumstances as the respondent's belongings were stolen by unauthorized persons in a reserved coach, therefore, the Railways are liable to pay compensation to the respondents.
17. In Indian Railway and Ors. Vs. Uma Agarwal, RP No. 1099 of 2020 decided on 25.07.2023, this Commission took note of instructions of Railways contained in their office letter. No. 98/TG- V/12/3 dated 11.09.1998, which prescribe certain duties of train conductor in Ist AC, 2nd AC, 3rd AC and Ist class coaches, some of which are reproduced below:
5. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach and guide the passengers in occupying their accommodation. He prevents illegal / unauthorized entry in the coach including the platform ticket holders.DISMISSED Page 18 of 21
FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN
11. He shall ensure that the doors of the coaches are kept latched during run of the train and open them as and when required by the passengers.
12. He shall keep the end doors of the vestibule coach locked during 22.00 hrs. to 06.00 hrs to prevent unauthorized entry.
13. He shall remain vigilant particularly during the night time and prevent entry of unauthorized persons / beggars / intruders in the coach.
17. He shall be present in the allotted coach during duty hours and if more than one coach are to be manned, give frequent visits to all the coaches to be manned.
19. He shall attend to any complaint of theft / loss of passenger belongings and lodged the first information report with the GRP in the prescribed format to enable the passenger to continue the journey.
20. He shall carry blank FIR forms for making them available to the passengers in case of any incident of theft of luggage etc. Such forms duly filled in the handed over to the next GRP Post at the scheduled stoppage for further action in the matter."
14. Since the respondent alongwith his wife was travelling in the reserved coach of the Railways, it was the duty of the TTE to ensure that no intruder enter the reserved compartment of the Railways. The theft of trolly bag of the complainant took place from a reserved compartment and, therefore, it could not be ruled out that some intruder must have entered the reserved compartment who committed the theft of the trolly bag. Had the TTE of the Railways been vigilant and careful the entry of the intruders/some unauthorized persons must have been prevented in the coach during the journey and the complainant did not have to face the mental agony and harassment due to the theft of his trolly bag. While holding so, the District Commission has rightly placed reliance upon the principle of law settled by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled 'G.M., South Central Railway vs. R.V. Kumar & Anr.' reported in 2005 CTJ 862 (CP).
15. The District Commission has also mentioned the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatayvs . Union of DISMISSED Page 19 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN India Ors., reported in II (204) CPJ 27 (SC) : 2004(3) Supreme 291 wherein it is held that the Railway Administration cannot escape its liability for negligence and deficiency in service in failing to prevent unauthorized persons assaulting passengers in railway compartment and taking away their luggage.
16. It is rightly observed by the District Commission that "the opposite parties have not even filed affidavit of the TTE, who was travelling in the coach, to support its submissions and could be conclusive in deciding the entire facts and circumstances regarding what had happened during the complainant's train journey. The OP-Railways had also failed to examine the TTE etc. The complainant has alleged that no RPF personnel were there, which the opposite parties have rebutted but without leading any cogent evidence in support of their rebuttal. Although necessary FIR was lodged with the concerned Police authority and OP Railway was apprised of the matter, none of them took any positive step to brought the perpetrator(s) of such crime to justice, in any case, it is the settled position of law that pendency of criminal case/investigation is no bar to adjudicate a consumer dispute."
17. It is also rightly observed that "The luggage concerned contained gold ornaments worth Rs.3,00,000/-. Although the complainant filed one estimate to show purchase of gold ornaments for an amount of, without any tangible proof, it cannot be stated with certainty that the stolen luggage indeed contained those goods as claimed by the complainant. Considering all these aspects, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the compensation amount is fixed. Accordingly, OP`s is/are Jointly and severally directed to pay complainant a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand Only) keeping in mind the harassment, mental stress and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees DISMISSED Page 20 of 21 FA/118/2022 D.O.D. 04.07.2025 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. DR. MOHD. RAMZAN Ten Thousand Only) for litigation cost along with an interest @9% p.a. from the date of institution of the case before this commission.
18. In this view of the matter, the District Commission was right in observing that the TTE of the train has failed to perform his duties, which amounted to negligence and also deficiency in service, as per codified duties of the TTE.
19. Consequently, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reasons to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Therefore, we uphold the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi, M- Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi-110002.
20. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
21. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties as well as forwarded to the corresponding E-mail address available on the record
22. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On 04.07.2025 DISMISSED Page 21 of 21